|
|
|
|
|
by the_stc
3004 days ago
|
|
>This was a well-known design choice where the user could balance between transaction size and privacy--people who preferred faster/cheaper transactions chose to sacrifice untraceability. Nowadays, the default option enforces higher untraceability. This has always been wrong and it is wrong on the face. Your privacy does NOT depend on your ring-size. That is only for backward-tracing. For forwards tracing [more common: you have bad money and want to turn it anonymous so it is good] you rely on other people on the network false-spending your money. Between the low ringsize [3, now 5, soon 7] and the fact that a good double-digit % of network is owned by LE-accessible entities [ShapeShift does at least 7-15% of tx]. Even with these papers Monero refuses to provide any sort of disclaimer that transactions may be traceable despite readily admitting you must do churn over time to gain privacy. Monero deserves a lot of criticism even if ZCash is worse in some ways. |
|